No, the process of detaining somebody and then shipping them off to another country does not involve torture. The country that they are sent to MAY employ torture, but that is not part of the rendition itself.

Don't conflate two different things. That's like saying that "all gun owners are murderers."

No, the process of detaining somebody and then shipping them off to another country does not involve torture.

From your own source.

Quote:

As we have previously noted, extreme rendition -- sometimes called "extraordinary rendition” -- refers to taking terrorism suspects to nations where they are at a high risk of being tortured or imprisoned indefinitely. This practice became common following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

So when Obama claims to eliminate the use of torture "without exception", he's merely weasel wording, otherwise known as lying..

So if a bank robber takes a cab to a bank, does that mean that catching a cab is the same as robbing a bank? Of course not. The two terms are not dependent on each other no matter how many times you say it. Was EVERY prisoner renditioned to Gitmo tortured? Apparently not. Q.E.D.

And did I say I approved of either rendition or torture? Oh that's right, I didn't comment either way. Strawman me some more - it only hurts your credibility.

Red Herring not applicable to the situation. If it did, you would have to have the cabbie know that it was very likely that his cab would be used in a robbery.

No, a red herring is an irrelevant distraction. I gave you an analogous comparison. Rendition itself is not torture. Rendition is a means of transport. Torture is what happens (sometimes) when they get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Yet you somehow thought MtnGoat lacked morals, even though he didn't say that he approved of letting people starve.

Because that's exactly what he suggested in denying any form of food assistance to unplanned children in the women's health thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

If we're going to simply proceed on the basis of cost while ignoring the moral basis of the costs, then it's far cheaper to not pay for any of the above.

THIS is an example of a red herring. You're making an ad-hom against Obama, when Obama's character is not the topic of discussion. The point of contention was whether or not the US policy of torturing its prisoners had stopped or not. You haven't disproven the fact that the US stopped using torture (such as waterboarding) on its prisoners. Obama could be everything that Tea-partiers fear, Kenyan/Muslim/lizardman, but that would STILL mean that you're STILL wrong, and that the US stopped torturing its prisoners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

You're still wrong, and you're arguing against a clear definition.

Does the US torture its prisoners? No.
Does the US send prisoners to other countries where they may be tortured? Yes.

Two questions, two different answers. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive - they can both be true at the same time